Long live the Free Speech Coalition

79 comments on “Long live the Free Speech Coalition ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Mr Wong 1

   11 December 2008 at 5:34 pm

   That is my father.
2. Robinsod 2

   11 December 2008 at 5:54 pm

   Hi dad.

   Oh and this is fucking hilarious!
3. Brett Dale 3

   11 December 2008 at 6:11 pm

   What about the rights of the employer?
4. DeeDub 4

   11 December 2008 at 6:23 pm

   BD just fuck off. We’re tired of hearing you ranting on about the poor, down-todden employers of this country…. go ask someone who gives a shit.
5. burt 5

   11 December 2008 at 6:24 pm

   Tane

   When DPF put the original of this billboard on his blog who was it that posted this comment?

   Absolute fucking filth. You should be ashamed of yourself David.
6. burt 6

   11 December 2008 at 6:25 pm

   Tane

   Here is a clue, the same person also posted this comment.

   I didn’t find it humorous at all. I think you people have gone way too far in this and you’re playing a very dangerous game.

   You’re cheapening the suffering of people who live under a dictatorship and trying to stoke division and hatred in our society. It’s sick politics and it does your cause a huge discredit. This will come back to bite the National Party.
7. Tane 7

   11 December 2008 at 6:30 pm

   Yes, I agree burt. Farrar’s campaign was disgusting and degraded our discourse. Now I’m satirising it to show up how cynical and unprincipled it was. Nice to see you take an interest.
8. Robinsod 8

   11 December 2008 at 6:31 pm

   Hey Burt – they’re making fun of DPF doing exactly that. I guess you’re either too fucking thick to understand irony or you’re overwhelmed by your desire to defend DPF – do you like, have a man-crush on him?

   Ha! You two would make a hilarious couple! I can Just see it now! The fat man and his thin man-wife!
9. Matthew Pilott 9

   11 December 2008 at 6:44 pm

   There it is, straight from the moron’s mouth: Employers are not humans. Their views are mutually exclusive to those of the Human Rights Commission. Employers’ rights vs Human rights.

   Brett Dale, thank you for making that admission. So are they robots, or merely inhuman? What a stupid comment from BD on each and every level.

   D bloody minus.
10. Matthew Pilott 10

    11 December 2008 at 6:51 pm

    How odd, I got a new name. In Pig Latin, nonetheless.

    What a joke this has all turned out to be. Pretty bad one for the poor bastards who are getting change that they didn’t quite vote for. Who would make a submission to a 90-day fire at will bill (nice to see that catching in the MSM) when Labour was in power – I wouldn’t piss around worrying about bills that wouldn’t have a chance of getting through.

    Also nice to see the MSM trying to hide the fact that they merely cut and pasted tory press releases for the months before the election. “There was bad stuff in there? Well, the press release was VERY cleverly constructed, we’re not real journalists so we didn’t notice. No one TOLD us!“. What a bloody embarrassment.
11. outofbed 11

    11 December 2008 at 7:31 pm

    Greens make bills available if Nats won’t
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/12/11/greens-make-bills-available-if-nats-wont/
12. Brett Dale 12

    11 December 2008 at 7:37 pm

    No one has yet to answer my question, Why would an employer fire a good worker?

    I take it Deedub will get a warning for telling someone to F off.
13. barnsleybill 13

    11 December 2008 at 7:46 pm

    These changes are fantastic for people who would probably not get the chance of employment under the old system.
    Now an employer is able to take a chance on somebody who doesn’t look the part, or interview well .
    Tattooed mongs and ugly women should be rejoicing.
    Oh, and it is nice to see Robinsod back. I like a little potty mouth with my blogging.
14. Robinsod 14

    11 December 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Barnsley – you’re right. Even your missus could get a job now. I guess that means she’ll be off the streets…

    Damn! And just when I had a spare five bucks…
15. barnsleybill 15

    11 December 2008 at 8:20 pm

    Your only saying that because your other half has a fufu like a wizards sleeve.
    I am astonished at how quickly you guys have rebounded and replenished yourselves from the well of hate. This employment law change allows employers to take a chance on candidates that would not normally get a look in.
16. Robinsod 16

    11 December 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Mrs ‘sod will be most displeased with that comment BB. I’d suggest you don’t visit New Plymouth for a while if you want to keep those dusty little sultanas you pass off as testicles…

    Oh and the law? Your argument boils down to “employers are bigots so we must accommodate their bigotry”. What do you want next wee fella? A law to accommodate all your other personal defects???

    Though I’m not sure what kind of a law could make you feel better about your various personality issues. Perhaps an “opposite of ASBO” law…?
17. Steve Pierson 17

    11 December 2008 at 8:43 pm

    ‘sod and friends. you’re funny but this is a family blog, please ease off.
18. Robinsod 18

    11 December 2008 at 8:52 pm

    But I was talking about BB’s family!
19. Joanna 19

    11 December 2008 at 8:52 pm

    The problem I have with this is people who support the bill are running two lines, at least one of which doesn’t make sense.

    1) employers will be able to take a chance and employ people they woudn’t normally.

    2) no one will lose their jobs unfairly because it takes so much time and effort to train someone, only people who looked great on paper but turned out to be bad will be affected.

    These dont go well together – if it takes so long and costs so much to train someone, why will this bill give employers any more incentive to hire undesireable people if desireable people apply. If no-one desireable applies then sure a shortage of labour will mean employees will be easily able to contract out of this provision I dont see this legislation as the end of the world, but it does worry me quite a bit and to be honest seems pointless.
20. Zorr 20

    11 December 2008 at 8:57 pm

    My biggest issue was summed up well by Phil Goff just a little earlier where the point put across was that if this bill is not to come in to effect until April 2009 then why does it have to be rushed through NOW?
21. Steve Pierson 21

    11 December 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Joanna, exactly. We see these contradictory arguments all the time.
22. Brett Dale 22

    11 December 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Shouldn’t jokes about family members of posters be out of bounds, they are at pandasport.

    [what’s panda sport? that site with videos of pandas humping? Hard to know whether it’s cute or perverted. Seriously though, Billy and the ‘sod and Barnsley have a special relationship and as long as its good natured and funny and doesn’t distract too much from the topic of the thread I’m not going to punish them. SP]
23. Steve Pierson 23

    11 December 2008 at 9:20 pm

    I love that we have a ‘hyperbolic billboards’ tag now.
24. Dean 24

    11 December 2008 at 9:32 pm

    SP:

    “Joanna, exactly. We see these contradictory arguments all the time.”

    I haven’t seen you get quite so worked up since the Coldplay fiasco, the wages dropping quote or that time you flew to Auckland.

    Besides, you and Joanna are entirely misrepresenting the issue. Some people may lose their jobs under the probationary period, but if you had ever been a party to someone misrepresenting themselves on their CV then you might see a need for such a bill.

    Of course, you’ll tell me that such a person being hired is the fault of the employer for not doing their homework. Unfortunately this isn’t as black and white as you’d like to think. I’m quite prepared to give you a list of examples if you’d like them but something tells me you haven’t quite thought your cunning smear through that far.
25. Steve Pierson 25

    11 December 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Dean. No, misrepresenting your CV would be grounds for dismissal under the current law if it amounted to serious misconduct.

    Sounds like we are actually regularly this excited, 4 times in a year… kind of undermined your own claim of hyperbole from us there, eh?
26. Jimbo 26

    11 December 2008 at 9:37 pm

    For starters, this bill is not “urgent” and should never have been rushed through as such. Full process should have been followed.

    I’ve worked in jurisdictions with this law and I’ve been employed subject to it. It’s no big deal in practice and will be forgotten about a year or so after it’s introduced. My guess is that when Labour next gets into government, the basic structure of what it’s doing will remain.

    Joanna – I’m not sure they’re contradictory arguments. I’d say they are two complementary reasons why supporters of the bill want it.

    1. Certain types of jobs (usually unskilled or manual labour) often present the opportunity for an employer to “take a chance” on someone. The potential employees might not have CV’s, or if they do, they are effectively meaningless (i.e. lots of itinerant labouring etc.) The CV simply does not tell the employer what they want to know. Employers will unskilled vacancies will like the new law for this reason.

    2. Other highly skilled jobs really need the job applicant to “conform to CV”, or else he/she will be a dud. 90 days will allows the employer to check that the applicant can deliver what their CV says. Employers with skilled vacancies will like the law for this reason.

    In theory, the law is a good one. All of the “anti” arguments are based around “workers rights” – but really they are about potential abuse of the law by employers. Supporters of the Bill think that abuses can be policed just like existing labour laws are enforced by the state.

    Most people sympathetic to the Bill believe (a) the worker wouldn’t have any “rights” at a particular organisation until after he got employed, and (b) it’s not asking too much for someone to have to prove themselves for 90 days, especially if they are taking on a job (and getting various “workers rights”) for life…
27. mike 27

    11 December 2008 at 9:40 pm

    “BD just fuck off. We’re tired of hearing you ranting on about the poor, down-todden employers of this country . go ask someone who gives a shit.”

    Luckily the new National Govt gives a shit which is why they are leveling up the playing field which has been skewed in favour of feckless drop-kick employees and the militant unions that support them.
28. Tane 28

    11 December 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Supporters of the Bill think that abuses can be policed

    That’s exactly the issue though, the bill specifically allows abuses and removes any ability to police them. If supporters believe what you’re suggesting they obviously don’t understand the bill.
29. Quoth the Raven 29

    11 December 2008 at 9:42 pm

    Brett – You’re right what about the rights of the priviliged members of our society? Does wealth and privilige get you nothing in this country. Won’t somebody please think of the ruling classes. God knows they have a hard enough time making profit off of other’s labour as it is.
30. Steve Pierson 30

    11 December 2008 at 9:42 pm

    mike. you don’t employ anyone, you’re a house slave. Tell me this, with this new law in place will you be willing to take the risk of going to work for a company employing 20 or fewer people?
31. Tane 31

    11 December 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Steve, of course he will. Mike has a puffed up sense of his own importance and a complete lack of self-awareness. And he’ll continue to do so until the day he gets an employer who tires of his crap and sacks him on grounds of “performance”.
32. Jimbo 32

    11 December 2008 at 9:49 pm

    Steve – the problem is, when the CV says “hard worker”, “team player”, “accurate and precise typist”, etc., you can’t ever show misrepresentation to the point of being actionable.

    90 days to prove yourself. A little bit longer than 1 or 2 hours in interviews, but quite a lot shorter than the lifetime you’ll stay in a job if it’s well-paid and rewarding…

    Of course it’s a compromise of sorts, but a lot of people (me included) think it’s a fair one.
33. Jimbo 33

    11 December 2008 at 9:53 pm

    If employers as a matter of practice abuse this regime, then any rational person will be less likely to work for a small organisation (like Steve says).

    Small employers would have to raise wages (to compensate for the extra “risk”) or stop the abuses.

    I don’t really see “abuse” as being likely or something that’s inevitable from this law. There are countless reasons why employers have better things to do than dismiss workers during their first 90 days. Their incentives are simply not lined up to encourage hiring and firing for a lark.
34. mike 34

    11 December 2008 at 9:57 pm

    “And he’ll continue to do so until the day he gets an employer who tires of his crap and sacks him on grounds of “performance’.”

    Na – more likely for surfing during work time cos I get a fat STI performance payment each year so they obviously love my work.
35. Quoth the Raven 35

    11 December 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Jimbo – There are plenty of reaons an ass of an employer would fire someone as well. Want to sign up to kiwisaver – gone. Want to join a union – gone. Gone and got yourself pregnant – gone. Injured yourself at home – gone. Rejected my sexual advances – gone &c, &c.
36. Jimbo 36

    11 December 2008 at 10:01 pm

    Tane – when you say the bill “allows abuses”, you make it sound a bit like the Bill specifically instructs employers to engage in hiring and firing behaviour.

    Supporters of the Bill simply do not see employers as having any incentive to “hire and fire at will”, even once the bill becomes law. Running your business that way would be crazy. Anyone who wanted to act like that would not be a good employer anyway!

    Perhaps greater protections will be needed once the law is up and running. Until then, a lot of people see it as a sensible compromise that will benefit small businesses at minimal (or no) cost to the employee.
37. Paul Robeson 37

    11 December 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Brett Dale- you ask why would an employer fire a good worker. Another question is perhaps better- why should an employer be given the power to fire a good worker without a reason, and without the employee having any recourse?
38. mike 38

    11 December 2008 at 10:08 pm

    “Tell me this, with this new law in place will you be willing to take the risk of going to work for a company employing 20 or fewer people?”

    No probs as I back my ability and would enjoy the challenge. CV bullshitters and lazy pricks don’t deserve protection from sacking in the first 90 days
39. Jimbo 39

    11 December 2008 at 10:11 pm

    QTR –

    The union thing is easy, no doubt the practice will simply be to sign up after 3 months. In some overseas jurisdictions, you don’t get retirement benefits (or even holiday pay) until after the 3 months.

    Pregnancy – agree that’s a hard one. I don’t know enough about the law relating to entitlements and I don’t pretend to have an answer (its difficult position for both employer and employee).

    Sexual harassment etc is specifically dealt with in the legislation, is it not?

    Injury – perhaps. Gotta be a minute number of cases (which doesn’t help the people affected), so in my view would not be reason enough to dispense with a policy that has clear and obvious benefits to small employers.

    The point is: these policies exist elsewhere in the world and they don’t cause the mass breakdown in the employer-employee relationship that some opponents appear to be expecting.

    Even if you look at it in the WORST way, the law will make it necessary to go through a 3 month job interview (rather than a 2 hour one).

    If you injure yourself immediately prior to a job interview and the employer isn’t understanding, that’s terrible luck (and probably also a sign that employer isn’t worth bothering with).
40. Burnzy 40

    11 December 2008 at 10:16 pm

    “Does wealth and privilige get you nothing in this country. Won?t somebody please think of the ruling classes. God knows they have a hard enough time making profit off of other?s labour as it is.”

    You think that companies under 20 employees are of the ruling class? And I guess the logic of why some who is a good worker would be fired after 3 months should just be ignored, it makes no economic sense. Pay reviews are typically held yearly, the cost of advertising, the loss in productivity, the time it takes to get someone up to speed and thus a short term reduction in productivity all defy why an employer would wish to fire a good employee after only 3 months- so please explain to me what are the advantages of firing your staff every 90 days? Especially in a small company of 20 people where everyday matters and productivity is absolutely crucial.

    And isn’t this also about giving equal rights to the employer? Or does equal rights only apply to one side? Employees are able to give often just two weeks notice before they throw the company in the lurch, do you know how hard it is for an employer to dismiss an unethical employee?

    A large portion of the New Zealand economy is driven by small and medium companies; these companies employee people, if the environment in which these companies improve they become more prosperous; if they become more prosperous they grow; if they grow they will require more employees and the senior employees will expect higher wages and the company will have to pay these higher rates if they expect to retain their staff. Wouldn’t this bring greater wealth, equality, employment and stability for the country?

    [Tane: Employers are people, they act irrationally all the time. Just because it’s not always in their economic interests (though sometimes it is) doesn’t mean they won’t act irrationally and abuse their power. That’s why we have laws to provide for fair treatment and protect against abuse. Also, there is no evidence taking away rights reduces unemployment – you’re talking crap.]
41. Tane 41

    11 December 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Jimbo, the labour market you’re talking about is a fantasy. It doesn’t exist outside of economists’ textbooks. Most people take the job that is available, and they little option but to take it on the terms that are offered. All this talk about a ‘risk premium’ is frankly absurd when you look at the reality for most people. Do you think cleaners, aged care workers, supermarket cashier and hospo workers are in much of a position to demand a ‘risk premium’?
42. Brett Dale 42

    11 December 2008 at 10:23 pm

    Panda sport is a sport’s forum where the mascot is a panda.

    I didnt know about the special relationship between the two posters here.
43. Tane 43

    11 December 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Jimbo.

    Tane – when you say the bill “allows abuses”, you make it sound a bit like the Bill specifically instructs employers to engage in hiring and firing behaviour. 

    Supporters of the Bill simply do not see employers as having any incentive to “hire and fire at will”, even once the bill becomes law.  Running your business that way would be crazy.  Anyone who wanted to act like that would not be a good employer anyway! 

    No, don’t put words in my mouth. I’m simply pointing out the absurdity of your argument. Abuses can’t be policed because the means to police them is explicitly removed. And don’t give me that crap about employers not behaving irrationally. Employers are people, they behave irrationally all the time. A key problem with this law is it gives workers no protection against irrational, capricious or abusive behaviour.

    Sexual harassment etc is specifically dealt with in the legislation, is it not?

    Sure, but I didn’t fire you because you wouldn’t sleep with me at the  Christmas party, I fired you for “performance” issues.

    The point is: these policies exist elsewhere in the world and they don’t cause the mass breakdown in the employer-employee relationship that some opponents appear to be expecting.
    
    You’ve bought the line on that one. They don’t exist in the exact same form. In Japan for example you need a state official to approve the sacking. In countries where there is similar law, like Australia, it’s seen abuse and has been the focus of massive public outrage. By some accounts it was the downfall of the Howard government.

    Even if you look at it in the WORST way, the law will make it necessary to go through a 3 month job interview (rather than a 2 hour one)
    
    This is about giving employers the power to arbitrarily turn off a person’t income – their livelihood – for no reason at all. It’s a fundamental breach of the human right to live in dignity and freedom from fear of poverty.
44. bob smith 44

    11 December 2008 at 10:38 pm

    [deleted]
    [lprent dad – you are banned]
45. QoT 45

    11 December 2008 at 10:49 pm

    I think the answer is obvious – no employer will fire a “good” worker.

    Of course, the bill’s supporters are working on the hilarious assumption that all employers have the same definition of “good worker”, and that said definition aligns perfectly with their own.

    Which will work just fine until they hit an employer whose definition of “good worker” doesn’t include them.
46. Burnzy 46

    11 December 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Tane-

    And the rights of the employer should come second to the rights of the employee? I agree that employees do need protection from evil bosses, but where is the balance- what is there to stop an employee from screwing over an employer? Employees have to do a hell of a lot for a company to finally be justified in firing them. Ask just about any small business owner I am sure they will have at least one horror story of an employee who hurt the company. Are employees not subject to the same irrationality as employers? Giving an employer 3 months to get to know an employee seems fairly reasonable.
47. Tane 47

    11 December 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Burnzy – there are already measures to “stop an employee screwing over an employer”. Serious misconduct is a sackable offence, poor performance simply requires warnings and proper management. Yes, employees can be irrational, but they are under the employer’s command.

    Because of the nature of this power relationship, and it is a lot of power to have someone’s livelihood in your hands, there are certain standards of fairness that employers must abide by. One of those is to provide a fair and transparent process for dismissal to prevent arbitrary or capricious treatment. It’s not much to ask, it’s just a basic level of treatment I’d expect from any decent employer.
48. Jimbo 48

    11 December 2008 at 11:07 pm

    Tane,

    Sorry – wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth! Was trying to show that there’s a difference between having a “power” (or freedom to act in a particular way), and in fact being likely to act that way.

    To take an absurb example: At the moment, I have the “power” to fart whenever and wherever I like. I could fart repeatedly in a crowded cinema and it would both ruin Madagascar II for everone else and probably affect my health.

    Should the government curb the “power” I have to fart freely because I MIGHT abuse my power to the detriment of others? I’d say no – the alleged “abuse” is not happening enough to be a real concern. Same sort of thing here. Employers don’t have any incentive to abuse the 90 day dismissal power. In fact, there are lots of incentives AGAINST firing employees.

    I don’t disagree that employers can act irrationally. However, I don’t think New Zealand’s laws should be tailored to deal with the “risk” of what an irrational employer would do…
49. Tane 49

    11 December 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Jimbo, you lost me with all the farting.
50. Jimbo 50

    11 December 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Heh! You’re not the first to have said that…!
51. Chris G 51

    11 December 2008 at 11:45 pm

    BD, Ill tell you why an employer would fire a good worker.

    worker is:

    – Pregnant
    – Homosexual
    – Alternative in some shape or form
    – Maybe even the prick who doesnt wash the dishes in the staffroom once they’ve eaten/ Doesnt refill the coffee?
    yada yada, list goes on

    Now if your going to say, oh well the bill doesnt let you fire for that. Well, the employer can simply say that its ‘performance related’ Once again I’ll give the example of a Stephen Franks-esque employer…. Surely he cant be the only bonehead with those sorts of views in NZ?

    –

    I also expect to see John Boscawen (NZ’s Bastion of Free Speech and Democracy) posting full page advertisements in the Major NZ newspapers decrying this foul law and quoting his pals at the ‘human rights commission’

    TAB odds that he WONT: $1.01 … Wagers anyone?
52. Chris G 52

    11 December 2008 at 11:51 pm

    Infact, once again. I suggest to all the righties who harp on about the rights of the employer and that its too hard to fire piss poor workers… Why not just make the EXISTING PROCESS for dismissal on grounds of poor performance more approachable for employers?

    Why jump to the extreme of a 90 day trial with American style firing? You wanna talk about balance between employers/employees, I dont think that is, I think my suggestion is more balanced.
53. Quoth the Raven 53

    11 December 2008 at 11:53 pm

    Jimbo – Don’t you think the employee should have the right to join a union whenever he wants without fear of losing his job? you know the right to free association. Tane has it on the sexual harrassment issue – how is it actually going to work in practise? Injury – Doesn’t matter if it would be a minute number of cases don’t you think the employee ought to have the right to some sort of recourse? as with pregnancy. None of these potential abuses, which you yourself admit to, would come about if the law weren’t changed. It is absolutely needless.
54. Dean 54

    12 December 2008 at 12:19 am

    SP:

    “Dean. No, misrepresenting your CV would be grounds for dismissal under the current law if it amounted to serious misconduct.

    Sounds like we are actually regularly this excited, 4 times in a year kind of undermined your own claim of hyperbole from us there, eh?”

    Not as excited as you were over your allegations regarding the catholic church and the holocaust. You still run away from that one though.

    Or the one about tax rates being among the lowest in the OECD when the wikipedia graph you posted proved otherwise.

    But back to the point. Lets see you try and prove someone was misrepresenting their CV. I look forward to being illuminated and being shown a definitive, 100 per cent conclusive way to prove this.
55. Steve Pierson 55

    12 December 2008 at 12:30 am

    my, Dean, you are a close reader.
56. Dean 56

    12 December 2008 at 12:38 am

    SP:

    “my, Dean, you are a close reader.”

    My, Clinton, you are a touch precious. Perhaps youd care to back up your own statements with something that didn’t resemble a quick wikipedia? Maybe you’d even like to explain the tax graph you posted and your obviously incorrect assertions? Perhaps you’d like to explain the foolproof way a small business owner can with 100 per cent effectiveness determine a fraudulent CV?

    No, I didn’t think you would either.
57. RAS 57

    12 December 2008 at 12:50 am

    It’s worth contrasting the hysteria here with this post on kiwiblog http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/12/myths_over_the_probation_period_bill.html

    In reality, I seriously doubt the law will be a problem and if it helps small business stay afloat by reducing the risk of a bad hire, then that’s actually good for workers as well.

    Yep, I do think that it’s a fair point to criticize the Nats for using urgency, but the hypocrisy of Labour supporters moaning about it is stark!

    Something to work on I guess…gaining back the voter’s trust.
58. Dean 58

    12 December 2008 at 12:54 am

    RAS:

    “Yep, I do think that it’s a fair point to criticize the Nats for using urgency, but the hypocrisy of Labour supporters moaning about it is stark!”

    To be fair DPFs spin doesn’t answer a lot of questions and merely skirts around them like so many dancing girls on their way to the after party, as is his usual MO.

    “Yep, I do think that it’s a fair point to criticize the Nats for using urgency, but the hypocrisy of Labour supporters moaning about it is stark!”

    Isn’t it delicious!
59. lprent 59

    12 December 2008 at 12:59 am

    It appears that Cameron is upset about Tane’s use of what Cam considers is his ‘Intellectual property’. There are several problems with that interesting viewpoint.

    The funniest is that there are many words I’d associate with Cam.

    However ‘Intellectual’ is not one of them. I think that his own description of himself as ‘puerile’ is probably one of the better (and repeatable) ones.

    Of course given Cam’s track record of photoshopping people on other images, I suspect that he doesn’t understand the unwitting irony and ridicule that his claim will elicit. Perhaps he should pay James Sleep for the use of his image.
60. Miffy Fontford 60

    12 December 2008 at 3:29 am

    [deleted]
    [lprent: dad you are banned]
61. jbc 61

    12 December 2008 at 3:54 am

    lp: … there are many words I’d associate with Cam. […] However ‘Intellectual’ is not one of them.

    lol. yep. nailed it.

    And the “re-shopped’ Mao poster is appropriate too. While I don’t disagree (or at least I think I don’t disagree) with the principle of some of the legislation passed – I’d be much more comfortable with it following due process. I don’t see the urgency. It sucks.

    And the fact that I didn’t like the way the previous govt pushed some legislation through doesn’t make me feel any better about this. No consolation. It still sucks.

    One positive I can see is that in the present (worsening) economic climate the probationary employment legislation is probably more of a benefit to prospective employees than it is to employers (who will already have an excuse for shedding staff: shrinking business).

    I still wish it went through with some transparency.
62. taryn 62

    12 December 2008 at 4:10 am

    Does anyone know if it is 90 calendar days, or 90 working days?

    Way to put the boot in if it’s working days. Peripheral, part-time workers (who this Bill is most likely to adversely effect) will be further disadvantaged.

    Good one National.

    (I hope, although do not expect, that I am being paranoid and unnecessarily worrying about this).
63. lprent 63

    12 December 2008 at 8:45 am

    RAS: The urgency is not the major issue. The lack of transparency and consultation is. All the things that the Free Speech Coalition purported that they stood for. I really don’t see them standing up and working against this, so I’d guess it was all just weasel words.

    What is at issue is that NACT are avoiding ANY public scrutiny by avoiding taking bills to select committee.

    What is at issue is that NACT are rushing crap legislation that barely has the ink dry through the house.

    What is at issue is that NACT are not releasing the bills. We have to rely on the Greens doing it for them. This attempts to avoid free speech on their nills and to identify holes in it.

    What is at issue is that NACT are the most autocratic, anti-democratic government in almost 20 years, who are trying to use parliament as a rubber stamp and to run the country as a personal fiefdom of John Key and his mates.

    I suspect that it is going to take a lot to win back the voters trust. Especially since they look like they’re going to carry on like this. Bloody hard to keep all of this quiet in the days of widespread internet. As per usual, NACt are operating as if it was 20 years ago.
64. RobinsodsAss 64

    12 December 2008 at 9:11 am

    [deleted]
    [lprent dad – you are banned]
65. Tane 65

    12 December 2008 at 9:20 am

    RAS, Farrar’s post is cribbed from the bottom of a Kate Wilkinson press release and is either incorrect or not actually a myth. You righties need a new messaging hub, Farrar’s dropping his game.
66. infused 66

    12 December 2008 at 10:08 am

    Tane, I’ve read this entire post regarding your posts. You seem to assume a lot about an employer. Just have to ask, do you have any experience in running a small business at all?

    Because frankly some of the stuff you assume is total bullshit. You make it sound like firing people is a piece of cake under the current law.
67. Steve Pierson 67

    12 December 2008 at 10:20 am

    Tane has been an employer, I believe as have a bunch of the others. I’ve led and recruited people but not been a business owner but we’re about to become small business owners when we retool this site for advertising.

    I guess we’ll have to start voting Tory then.
68. PeachyBehinds 68

    12 December 2008 at 10:24 am

    Retool, how apt.

    Perhaps downtool is more appropriate though.

    Will the advertisers be unions?
69. PeachyBehinds 69

    12 December 2008 at 10:42 am

    [deleted]
    [lprent: dad you are banned]
70. twisted 70

    12 December 2008 at 10:46 am

    I think its great. Having WORKED extensively in Cafes the quality of some of the ‘staff’ to come through the doors is appalling. These people cost the business owner extensively in time, money, custom and of course, sanity.

    Tell me this, would you go to a cafe where the counter person greets you with a sneer, stares at you blankly when you order and rolls her eyes at you when you correct the order?

    Would you be happy to have your plate/coffee dumped in front of you with a bang, a surly glance and a quiet mutter?

    Sure. These people can be sacked. But with the three warning process, They have the opportunity to do irrepairable damage to a business. Whats just as bad, is that their fellow, dilligent workers have to work twice as hard to compensate for their failures.

    Workers rights? What about the rights of the dilligent worker?

    This Change in law has been a long time coming. Too long.
71. Chris G 71

    12 December 2008 at 10:49 am

    Once again, anyone care to answer why they shouldnt just loosen up the process for dismissal on grounds of poor performance rather than creating a bill that is set up to be abused?

    eg. have a look at how the employment court operates, make it less weighted to employees.

    –

    robinsodsass (Oh what a clever name) “No, just doing what they campaigned on.”

    Interesting…. when was it outlined in the 100 day plan? Why then, is it somehow in it now?

    –

    Another thing, I woke up this morning to find no mention in any major newspaper (Actually anywhere at all) from NZ’s Bastion of Free Speech and Democracy John Boscawen of the problems with this bill as mentioned by his mates the Human Rights Comission…. Whats going on John? Cat got your tongue?
72. Jimbo 72

    12 December 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Under the old law and now, if I accept a job, but after 10 days decide I don’t like the employer, coffee, receptionist, work-hours or anything else, I can get up and leave WITHOUT compensating the employer for his costs. Why doesn’t the law “protect” employers from employees who just up and leave within, say, 90 days after taking on a PERMANENT role?

    Are employees who leave a permenant job withing 90 days of starting liars? lazy? nasty? destructive to the economy? Surely if they’ve made a mistake in accepting a job that was offered to them in good faith for life, the least they should do is compensate the poor employer who, through no fault of his own, has to start all over again. The employer must, surely, have to reimburse recruitment and training costs, huh?

    The answer is, of course, “No”.

    It’s not something employees are incentivised to do (wastes the employee’s time as well to only work short period at one job then leave), and when it does happen, it’s better that the employee-employer relationship ends.

    We assume, when we’re talking about employees who CHOOSE to leave soon after taking a permanent role, that they only do so because there has been a major disconnect – the job is too hard/easy, the hours are too long, the job is not challenging enough, the people suck, the product is boring.

    The new law is the EXACT equivalent of employees being able to leave their jobs at any time without compensating the employer. It is, in fact, a far more limited “power” than employees have (and will continue to have). Employees can leave for any reason whatsoever – employers can fire for performance issues only.

    Why can employees fix their mistake at any time without financial penalty, while employers have to be “perfect” after a one-hour interview and no on-the-job test run?

    Like I said, this law is no big deal and will quickly be accepted as such. Labour will not repeal it.
73. Jimbo 73

    12 December 2008 at 2:45 pm

    QTR –

    No, I don’t think something that has a miniscule chance of happening should be legislated against, especially when there are clear benefits from going the other way. Employers ARE NOT incentivised to hire and fire people for sport, or have the workforce constantly on 3-month rotation.

    The new law DOES allow employers to take a chance on someone who’s unproven. That is a GREAT thing for job-hunters with few skills or a patchy CV, so I’m surprised that positive benefit, at least, is not being acknowledged by some posters.

    I’ve been employed under three-month probation periods twice. What happens is that you don’t really regard yourself as “being employed” until the three months has passed – so you don’t really feel as if you’ve been “deprived of rights” (what rights do I have in the organisation if they haven’t yet confirmed me in the role?). For three months, you work your butt off trying to make a decent impression. Frankly, it’s a good thing for putting in place decent habits.

    Like one of the posters above said, perhaps we will notice an improvement in service quality in itinerant areas such as restaurant staff.

    This law will be good for New Zealand.
74. Kerry 74

    12 December 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Poor bloody small business owners…..boo bloody hoo.

    If you are DUMB enough not to do your homework before you hire someone thats your own stupid fault!!

    Tories banged on about living in a nanny state….well what is this legislation if not that?????!!

    Whats next??? making them work for free for the first 90 days???? or perhaps the new employee should pay the wonderful employer who is taking such a major chance on this person…….TORY PIGS!
75. George 75

    12 December 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Nice one kerry, small business owners are an integral part of the economy. as are workers. most are not dumb if they haven’t pried further into peoples pasts than most people would be comfortable with anyway. just too busy. This legislation is not nanny-state, I’d say that if that legislation was passed that allowed employers to pry as much as you think they should, that would be Nanny-state, and i would for one would oppose it.

    The end of your comment is obviously your imagination gone wild, very few would work three months for free. those who almost do now, such as interns and work-experience people on extremely low wages, do so for the reward of a job at the end. These people usually slave their butts off, and if they perform get a job at the end of it.

    Hmm just clarified my own thinking about this law writing this, it’s a very good piece of legislation.

    would have to agree however that urgency may not have been required, i have always been uncomfortable with urgency used to rush through legislation not critical to the countries survival, like the EFA and if i recall correctly part of the civil union bill. then again maybe this will provide much needed employment stimulus. we will all see soon i guess.
76. Jimbo 76

    12 December 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Grow up Kerry. Try addressing the point.

    Should a worker who accepts a job for life, but decides to leave after 10 days, pay the employer compensation? After all, using your analysis, the employer was “dumb enough” to accept the job so should take the consequences, huh?

    Try engaging brain before madly bashing at the keys.
77. Jimbo 77

    12 December 2008 at 7:30 pm

    FOAD – I don’t believe an employee who quits should have to pay the employer compensation. Similarly, I think it’s fair for small employers to fix a “mistake” within 90 days.

    No big deal. Certainly not worthy of being called a pig:

    ^. .^
    (oo)
78. Kerry 78

    13 December 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Jimbo – Here i was thinking i was addressing the point….just gos to show us simple mortals never know whats going in tory’s head….not much i bet!

    Perhaps if employers treated their staff like humans and not chattles they wouldnt walk out the door after 10 days.

    Jimbo – in the word of NZ’s greatest PM…DIDDIMS!!!!!!
79. Bill 79

    13 December 2008 at 5:59 pm

    oops, comment in wrong post.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS